A Question about relations

[drewkitty ~..~]

It depends on what the GM is willing to be 'fast talked' into/out of.

But genrally the limits for the origanle gose for the varients...unless the varient was made to get around the limits of the origanle.

[Svartalf]

Well... If the GM did ban the original OCC from his campaign, I can hardly imagine him being hoodwinked into accepting variants, especially more powerful ones... but you can still try.

[Temporalmage]

Do you believe that any RCC that referred to the Headhunter OCC, either saying it was one of the few OCCs it could select, or that they were banned from selecting it, should apply a similar restriction to variations thereof in Canada?

The same query would apply to those new versions of City Rats in the bionics book, the new forms of operators and technowizards in the rifter, and the new juicers and crazies.

I believe the variants state which RCC's can be that specific OCC.

[Dead Boy]

OCC's of a shared family/group can have different and sometimes radical differences. The Juicers and Dog Boys are good examples of this. What applies to one OCC doesn't automaticlly apply to a related one unless it is out-right spelled out that it does in the other OCC.

[grandmaster z0b]

I selected "varies" as I think it really depends on the GM's judgement. I would allow most RCCs that state "Headhunter" as an option to chose a variant but possibly not Momano (or however you spell it). I'm not usually too concerned with these restrictions anyway if the player has a good idea and a good background to explain it.
I suppose GM's call is a bit of a cop out isn't it?